Category: technology integration

I am embarking on a new growth opportunity centering around Teaching for Understanding, a framework to help design instruction and assessment that supports deep understanding. The framework comes out of Project Zero and the Harvard Graduate School of Education. I’ve enrolled in their online course and am currently also reading Making Learning Whole as part of a book study with our district administrators.

Here I reflect on how ‘Making Learning Whole’ relates to technology integration done well. In the book David Perkins outlines Seven Principles of Teaching. The first is ‘Play the Whole Game’. Think of this as engaging students in project-based learning, problem-based learning, case studies and other opportunities where they are finding and solving problems around the big understandings of the unit. These types of performance based scenarios can easily lend themselves to technology integration as long as the parts (the technology bells and whistles) don’t interfere or take students away from the understanding. I often say during workshops to think of the 80:20 rule. 80% of any technology integrated unit is the learning part with only 20% on the technology part. For instance students love to present their findings using technology applications but make sure they aren’t spending more time designing their backgrounds then focusing on the information they are presenting. (Unless the purpose is on techniques of persuasion through layout and design.)

It is important to note that these performance based scenarios also often don’t need technology to be done well. Remember purpose of learning first, then the tools. Technology can offer wonderful opportunities for students to collaborate and communicate globally, but often face-to-face role-playing and debate is just as important.

David Perkins also notes ‘the whole game’ need not be the big game. This is an important distinction. I have heard from teachers before that they ‘don’t have time to do a performance/project that takes on a life of its own and weeks to complete.’ They often will say I need to continue covering the content and move on to the next unit. The important idea here is engaging students in meaningful activities that make them think and solve problems around the knowledge they are learning. This can easily be smaller activities done that allow students to engage in problem finding and solving throughout the unit. We know that rote recall and memorization of facts, or parts, won’t allow students to truly understand the key ideas of the content. They need to ‘Play the Whole Game’, applying what they learn to solve meaningful problems.

There are many web apps and software applications available to have students learn code and programming.

I see them falling into 3 categories:

Drag and drop (students put together blocks that have the code embedded) These programs are like Scratch, Scratch Jr., and Hopscotch, just to name a few.

Writing code to solve challenges (students are guided through how to write code in order to solve challenges in a game like platform) Code Monkey would be a good example of this.

Writing code to enforce self-directed tasks (students write code to create tasks, draw objects, or solve problems given to them) An example of this would be Terrapin Logo Programming. A ‘No floor, no ceiling’ learning philosophy allows for both teachers and students to use this software to truly support and enhance any curriculum.

Codea is an app that allows you to create games, and would also fit in this group, partially. Students do write the code, but there is also a component of clicking on the ( ) to add code for colors, animations and other features. It would actually be a cross between drag and drop and writing code since it gives you some shortcuts.

What type of tool should you use to have students programming in your classroom? It comes back to your learning goals. If you want students creating stories, or games that support problem solving and determining cause and affect then maybe you start them off with a simple drag and drop program that students won’t need to write code, but simply build the code to create a product. In the ‘drag and drop’ programs the focus is more on the creation, not the code writing.

To introduce and reinforce code writing, the middle category works well since students have to work through their code, remembering the language to get their character through the game (in this case the monkey to the banana). I see this as an easy first step in writing code, since it takes students through the code, practicing and completing ‘trail and error’ steps to accomplish goals. It also reinforces basic math concepts of positive and negative numbers and angles.

If you want them to focus on specific curriculum and learn a different language doing it then you’ll want to use a coding program that has more options and students can write the code they need. The later type allows students to write code to accomplish various tasks which can be self initiated and self directed by the student, or teacher directed as far as the task goes (then allowing students to solve the task using their own solutions through programming).

You may also look at the three categories as building blocks for students, forming a continuum of coding experiences. Each allowing students to see cause and affect, and trouble shooting through progressive steps that create an end product, whether it is a game, website, story or other animation.

Which category from above do you like to use with students the most? Share here and let us know.